A thought experiment -
Let’s say you have 2 people who agree to raise a child together. After concepetion and during the pregnancy the non pregnant individual works double time to pay for the forcasted expences and to support the mother (preumably on maternity leave).
Let’s also say that neither are willing to adopt.
The mother decides late in the pregnancy to have an abortion - is it moral for her to do so?
Moral? There’s no way to know without tons more information. Why does she decide to have an abortion? Because she’s mad at her partner and wants to tick him off? Because the pregnancy is threatening her life? Because she finds the lifestyle so incredibly stifling that she can’t handle it?
The question you’ve phrased is more a legal matter. Can she legally decide to have an abortion without input from her partner? Well, if they have no legal contract such as a marriage, then yes. If the partner is male and provided the sperm for this fetus, he may have some recourse under current law (not sure about that), but I really don’t think that he should. It’s her body, end of discussion.
I’ve raised this type of issue in regard to abortion and the individual rights of the father with other Objectivists. Its a tough question to answer and one of the few problem areas I still have as a student of Objectivism. Most anti-abortion advocates argue from the perspective of the life of the fetus. This would be fine if a fetus had a right to life equal to any other human. There is a huge debate on that as well, but like Objectivists I’m inclined to the negative on that issue. My problem comes with the rights of the father, married or not, in having consensual sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy. To say that the father has no say at all in such a situation strikes me as irrational and a rejection of a high value and personal responsibility. (In all cases of nonconsensual sex and medical emergency I agree there is really no debate. The choice of abortion is reserved entirely to the mother.)
What rights does the man have in regard to the child? If he is willing and easily able to provide the child with a happy, easy life and a nurturing, loving relationship and is willing to part ways and impose no burden on the mother are you really ready to say he has no rights at all vested in what is to be his child as much as it is the mother’s? Though it is crude to think of a fetus in such terms since it is not yet “living” and has no right to life (yet) it can be thought of a joint property of its creators. An abortion would then be infringment of one of the father’s rights. Lets analogize it to two artists (A and B) who paint together. One does most of the work, but the other was clearly instrumental. Now lets suppose that artist A doesn’t want the unique painting they have done together. He tells artist B that he is going to destroy it. In a legal battle B would be granted an injunction and eventually possession of the painting. In those circumstances I think most would agree with the result. Now I know its a stretch to analogize in such a way but it does illustrate the point. Also, it demonstrates the possibility of intellectual inconsistency between Abortion (in limited cases) and Individual Rights.
Now, I almost take it for granted that Objectivists value life. I shouldn’t, but I suspect that most of you, since your life is your highest value, also highly value the lives of others generally. Maybe not, but the idea of an abortion to me is repugnant because of that personal value. I’ve heard arguments that the life for some fetuses had they lived would have been “bad” in various ways. I find that line of reasoning unpersuasive because there is no standard of value with which to compare the two. Therefore a life of suffering cannot be compared to non-existence in any meaningful sense.
Finally, I see abortions from consensual sex as an abdication of personal responsibility. The consequences of your actions are well known. If you don’t want children don’t take the risk. Even then if you absolutely must, please Take contraceptives! Use protection! If it still happens adoption is always an option. Otherwise my message to you is this.
I guess this sort of encapsulates my “pro-choice” view. 
For starters, as Jennifer said, to ask if the lady’s actions are moral, one must know why she is acting the way she is. You said, “the mother decides late in the pregnancy to have an abortion”. That raises a question of: why? Did she have reasons for her decision? What were they? Unless one understands those, one cannot judge her morality.
In fact, a guy who insists on the woman having the child is the one who is wrong and probably immoral.
Your second post is focussed more on whether there’s an implicit contract between man and woman, whether the man suffers damage from the breach, and whether the law must force the woman to go through with the contract.
Take the last part of that. Even if we assume that there is a contract and that it has been breached, it does not follow that the law must force compliance. For instance, suppose I say I will work for a firm for 2 years. Instead, I decide to leave. If I am truly in breach, the court may ask me to pay recompense, but will not force me to work my full term. Similarly, men and women can sometimes promise to get married and one party may take actions on that basis. If the parties back out, the law may ask one to pay the other recompense; but, they will not insist that the marriage take place.
Perhaps one of the lawyers here can tell us the types of circumstance in which a court may require performance of a contract rather than simply requiring compensation for its breach.
Perhaps one of the lawyers here can tell us the types of circumstance in which a court may require performance of a contract rather than simply requiring compensation for its breach.
ORC 4705.01, 4705.07 and all. That said, I understand that is may be ordered in the case of land or other unique items such as heirlooms when an award of damages would be insufficient, but not for services, since there would be a need for the court to monitor performance (so monitoring a pregnancy would create a huge burden on the court). I would be stunned if a court ever forced a woman to carry a child to term,
To say that the father has no say at all in such a situation strikes me as irrational and a rejection of a high value and personal responsibility. (In all cases of nonconsensual sex and medical emergency I agree there is really no debate. The choice of abortion is reserved entirely to the mother.)
What rights does the man have in regard to the child?
The man may have rights in regard to a CHILD, should he choose to opt for responsibility, just like a woman might have rights in regard to her children if she takes care of them. He has NO rights in regard to a FETUS. It’s not inside his body. He will not have to undergo nine months of pregnancy and a potentially miserable childbirth.
Of course, a woman has an ABSOLUTELY perfect protection against a man trying to assert his “rights” to control the functions of HER body because of his 30-second involvement with this process. “I don’t know whose child it is.” Bam. He’s out the door and running for the hills.
It occurs to me that I’ve never once heard of a man trying to get a court order for a paternity test to prove that it is his child if the woman assured him it wasn’t.
We are not talking about two artists collaborating equally on a project. We are talking about Ayn Rand going through nine months of hard work to produce a novel, whereas this other contributor who wants 50% of the credit just came up with the TITLE.
Sounds real fair to me. ::sarcasm::
Finally, I see abortions from consensual sex as an abdication of personal responsibility. The consequences of your actions are well known. If you don’t want children don’t take the risk. Even then if you absolutely must, please Take contraceptives! Use protection! If it still happens adoption is always an option.
Contraceptives are not 100% effective, and it’s not your body. Do you propose to force women to have children they don’t want? If not, then your feelings on the matter are utterly moot.
So I can give the kid up for adoption? Only after undergoing 9 months of medical restrictions, bills, sick time, and then the final she-bang in the hospital, which might prove disastrous for my health even under the best of circumstances.
Maybe I like to drink. Who’s going to take the kid with alcohol-related birth defects off my hands? Or the one with Down’s Syndrome? Or what happens when I finally find that perfect career opportunity . . . in Belarus.
Only in a “perfect” world where everything is nice and predictable can you say that “the consequences of your actions are well-known”. The Cheese Moves. The more options you have, the better off you are. Abdication of personal responsibility? Only the individual can make that call. Heck_, by_ deciding to have an abortion you are taking responsibility for your actions instead of blindly following the path of least resistance.
Are you opposed to research on repairing repetitive-stress injuries because you could have easily avoided them by taking preventive measures? Do you think fat people should be left to die if they have a heart attack? Or how about denying you credit for the rest of your life the first time you pay late on your credit card? Fire an employee the first time he’s late? Forbid divorce?
I find moralizing of this kind thoroughly repugnant. The more impact a decision is to have on your future life and happiness, the more opportunities you should be offered to get out of it, and the less taking one of those outs says about your moral character. What does say a LOT is if you decided to stay the course and succeeded.
I think a lot of men have problems with this, because on the surface it seems as though extra rights are being assigned to women. Because of the unique context of the child-bearing situation, men just don’t get a say in the matter (unless there is some contractual agreement involved), and that’s that. It’s not because women have extra rights, but because they have the same rights, which manifest themselves differently in this particular case, because it’s their property that is being used to grow the baby.
Show me a man who can carry a baby, and I’ll show you a man who gets a say in abortion.
A man has no right to force a woman to go through that ordeal. If he wants a child, he can adopt one or hire a woman to carry one with his genes.
If he wants a child, he can adopt one or hire a woman to carry one with his genes.
Having hired one, however, he still may not force her to carry the child to term.
Having hired one, however, he still may not force her to carry the child to term.
I’m inclined toward saying that would depend on the terms of the contract, but I’m not going to make any definite claim one way or the other, since it involves a lot of legal aspects I don’t fully understand.
I’m with Nerd on that one. He can certainly insist that she repay any and all funds that he had invested in her, plus punitive damages for default on the contract (these are usually specified in a contract, like the money your bank charges you if you bounce a check).
Despite the risk and discomfort involved, if you REALLY want a kid it is NOT that hard to find a woman that’s willing to carry one. It’s probably harder, in the long run, to find a woman that’s willing to live with you, change diapers, do laundry, drive your kids to the doctor, school, soccer practice, birthday parties, etc. etc. etc. and still come home, cook dinner for you, and have a romantic relationship. Not to mention she’s got a full-time job outside the home.
Most of the women I work with do this, and although they get frustrated sometimes they seem to enjoy it. They’re women. It’s what they do.
Moral? If the woman is aborting the fetus on grounds that the baby to be born is somehow hindering her life in some way, but regardless her choice is here own, moral or immoral. As for the partner, in your situation he is giving his money freely to this woman for support with only there word as agreement. The woman is under no legal or moral obligation to abide by the terms of the agreement. As many others have stated a women’s body is her property and as with property you have a right to protect it if it is threaten.
I don’t object to abortion, during any term at all. Thought I think it’s a little silly and irresponsible, to wait until the baby is almost born to terminate the birth. To me it’s like building a house and just before you’re done you tear it down. Regardless that is still the choice of the mother. The man providing the sperm is by his actions giving the woman his property to do with as she wills. If he doesn’t want the woman to get pregnant then he should not have sex with this woman. Likewise if the woman doesn’t want to get pregnant she should not have sex with a man. If he wants a say in how the fetus is to be treated he should have a written contract that gives him say in this situation.
In the case of a contract, if the women signs saying that she will bring the baby to full term then I think she can be held accountable for termination of the fetus. This is a more complicated issue to be discussed with the parties involved with the pregnancy.
I don’t object to abortion, during any term at all. Thought I think it’s a little silly and irresponsible, to wait until the baby is almost born to terminate the birth. To me it’s like building a house and just before you’re done you tear it down. Regardless that is still the choice of the mother. The man providing the sperm is by his actions giving the woman his property to do with as she wills. If he doesn’t want the woman to get pregnant then he should not have sex with this woman. Likewise if the woman doesn’t want to get pregnant she should not have sex with a man. If he wants a say in how the fetus is to be treated he should have a written contract that gives him say in this situation.
It can be silly and irresponsible, true. Personally, if I found out that my home was infested with black mold right before it was scheduled to be completed I’d have it torn down.
Should not have sex, though? That’s like saying that if you don’t want to get into a car accident you should never go anywhere by car. In fact, you should probably just stay in your house. Doing anything carries its risks. If I were going to say should, I’d say, you should make yourself at least aware of the most common risks before you do anything, and know what the various possible backup plans available to you are. Then, go ahead and do it, and I hope you have fun.
In the case of a contract, if the women signs saying that she will bring the baby to full term then I think she can be held accountable for termination of the fetus. This is a more complicated issue to be discussed with the parties involved with the pregnancy.
Accountable, yes, but that does not mean being forced to bear the child: it means paying monetary damages. Anyone can discuss anything they want, but only the parties to the contract have any special right to require someone to listen to what they say. Ordinarily, you’d expect that to involve the child-bearer, and at least one other person who might but need not be the sperm donor. If calm discussion doesn’t resolve the matter, then the issue is resolved in the courts where it isn’t really a discussion.